Could Quantum Fields be Aether? 

Thanks for your interesting video. Area under a curve is often equivalent to energy. Buckling of an otherwise flat field shows a very rapid growth of this area to a point. If my model applies, it may show how the universe’s energy naturally developed from the inherent behavior of fields. Your subscribers might want to see this 1:29 minutes video showing under the right conditions, the quantization of a field is easily produced. The ground state energy is induced via Euler’s contain column analysis. Containing the column must come in to play before over buckling, or the effect will not work. The sheet of elastic material “system”response in a quantized manor when force is applied in the perpendicular direction. Bonding at the points of highest probabilities and maximum duration( ie peeks and troughs) of the fields “sheet” produced a stable structure when the undulations are bonded to a flat sheet that is placed above and below the core material. Some say this model is no different than plucking guitar strings. You can not make structures with vibrating guitar strings or harmonic oscillators. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-wrBsqiE0vG4.htmlsi=waT8lY2iX-wJdjO3 At this time in my research, I have been trying to describe the “U” shape formed that is produced before phase change. In the model, “U” shape waves are produced as the loading increases and just before the wave-like function shifts to the next higher energy level. Over-lapping all frequencies together using Fournier Transforms, can produce a “U” shape or square wave form. Wondering if Feynman Path Integrals for all possible wave functions could be applicable here too? If this model has merit, seeing the sawtooth load verse deflection graph produced could give some real insight in what happened during the quantum jumps between energy levels. The mechanical description and white paper that goes with the video can be found on my LinkedIn and RU-vid pages. You can reproduce my results using a sheet of Mylar* ( the clear plastic found in some school essay folders. Seeing it first hand is worth the effort!

So glad someone addressed this.

Wonderful grasp of your subject.

I think you need to consider both spacetime separations, and then combine them somehow, this also sort considers an inverse to einsteins fields theory with a metric tensor component to map the time as a distance between the two observers, "Miro"

Excellent insight

zero point energy is basically ether, just we can't use the term ether because of mostly Einstein

it is a bit backwards to say virtual particles are quantum fluctuations, when you really only have uncertainties in the values of quantum fields in the vacuum, the whole virtual particle thing is just a ad hock short hand mental crutch, we never see them we only see their effects in terms of measured uncertainties in terms of changed distributions of outcomes. the idea of vitual particles or really particles at all is a split brained classical intuition threaded through a familiarity with quantum terminology in my opinion. what we really have is a field theory with predictions on the instrumentalist side, and we can't really talk about half way defining a particle ontology, the reason that people do it anyway is because it doesnt make sense to not do it, so we might as well go all the way to looking for a sensible version of qm and actually thinking about the quantum systems as classical well defined variables in some form that have the statistical behavior of quantum mechanics where we have checked it. the pure instrumentalist approach is to think only about effects of measurments apparatuses, and signals sent between them and a black box called nature, in truth the workings of the apparatuses also become a black box, where we only have circumstantial understanding of how they work in terms of having tested their effects, to some degree that is just how science works, but having working theories and ideas about why they work the way they do and the same with nature is necessary for thinking and also doesnt really hamper anything, and if we are to do that it makes no sense to think about that in a half way instrumental way, instead of a properly sound information theory motivated way, namely information in = information out, in all quantum theories the information out is lacking and the information in is lacking. the definite outcomes that we see must have some root in reality, just saying there is necessarily new information being generated is delusional, it is just giving up explaining things in a way that is flattering to the ego of the people who fail to see how to do that, and that is no way to do science, that is a rather scholastic twisting of your own arm to prove a linguistically satisfying answer to a problem you have no idea how to solve, it is our modern day version of sympathies and antipathies. "new information pops up in an experiement you did, and you don't know where it came from? well that must just be fundamental to reality i guess. " that is the kind of nonsense that is the antithesis of proper science. quantum mechanical probability calculus is only a mixture of independent and dependent variables in a classical theory of probability, and there is no reason to say there is anything new, we just think that because the classical version of it with a "statistics over other variables" postulate is crazy or breaks some rules we set for ourselves, that it is sensible to talk about quantum mechanics as something entierly new, when all it is, and all it ever could be is a paculiar theory of variables that depend upon each other and that has a quasi random generator for the outcomes we do not know, so it is like doing statistics over unknowns, with the outcomes depending on each other in the possible ways allowed by quantum mechanics. that could have been explained to you in 1850 by a decent statistician.

excellent video, thanks

Thank you

The local vacuum speed of light is a constant for all inertial observers is a consequence of the gravitational field and completely independent of the other fields living on top of it. Any pair of null separated events will have a coordinate speed equal to the speed along the geodesic of the observer (given some world-line with tangent vector, U, the norm of the tangent vector is g(U,U)=1).

Wave equation(ripple) in free space since we can't isolate quanta transit as particle alone. The Unified Field logically is a periodic wave substrate and quanta transit behaviuor seperate from a static reference of any wave field.

Yes yes yes

The modern aether itself is completely virtual and consists of a special granularity other than quantum fields, and it has the ability to emerges space-time and particles from itself ! But in QFT space-time is assumed fundamental!

The idea of the ether as a gas-like medium can also be accepted on the basis of the analysis of the behavior of elementary particles at their interactions. The question arises how the particles of ether can be held in the composition of the elementary particles of matter, if ether is a gas? The answer to this question is not difficult if we take into account that elementary particles of matter are toroidal vortex formations of compacted gas-like ether. The basis for this statement is the fact that toroidal vortex formations are the only form of motion capable of holding a compacted gas in a closed volume.

It is all the same field. We all, everything, is mostly this quantized field. Matter is a result of differences in resonance of the field.

Dear Lucas Rafaj, I´ve watched several of your videos, and I really like your analytic and a bit critical cosmological sense. ------- IMHO, we have much too much unsolved and non-revisited cosmological dogmas and theories, including the very important question of Aether, which IMO is drowned in mathematical speculative mental constructs. ------ If you want a natural example of the aether concept, just take a reentering spacecraft getting heated up through the Earth’s atmosphere = the Earth´s "aethereal substance" by friction in the atmospheric density. ---------- Everything, including light, and other EM frequencies meets a resistance media which slows down the objects and the EM-velocity, thus transferring energy to the media, so NOTHING is constant at all, and this also affects the cosmological disagreement on the assumed “cosmic expansion tension rate”. -------- OK, I could go on and on with cosmological questions and natural philosophical comments, but if you like a closer collaboration, just leave an email-address and I´ll contact you there. Best Wishes

When you give it back we're dose it go in its Feld you borrow when something occurs or you look at it through collision and it goes back to its field cos it goes back it dose not keep on its collision order in this area all go back to field if it's property you explain same thing

They could be blanket fealds different wave they pass through each other without interaction and some times interact the the birth and death is what makes them constant there is more to this much more

and the ripple analogy is also somewhat wrong because the framework is a probability calculus, a photon is a wave that spreads of in different ways depending on the sources.

that is why we always get definite outcomes, quantum mechanics as a whole is just a tool for doing statistics over variables we don't understand. people think that is impossible, but that is because they are stupid and think they can just jump form equation to equation, postulate to postulate and reason under the lamp post just because otherwise they would be lost, that is a terrible principle of reasoning, and it doesn't work, we have curve fitted our way to roughly the right description, but that is it. i'm sorry but it is true, the so called principles of quantum mechanics is just curve fitting put in an increasingly pretty dress.

Remember that e = m*c*c is incomplete, as well as any equation concerning c*c. Complete? e = m*(e0*u0)^-0.5, here e0 and u0 represents Aether. It is unnecessary to invent Aether-field unless we are mathematicians wearing a physicist hat.

Also QFT was born from the Dirac Sea/Aether

We should call it the Aether anyways tho

if qft demotes x from oprator to parameter to make it consistent with time then what about promoting time from parameter to oprator

Plz explain maths of quantum physics

Or the CMBR, cosmological microwace background radiation. But could microwave radiation serve as a reference frame? I don't know.

What if photons i.e. static light is actually the either?

Why is 'promoting' t to operator status not an option? What problems would this give rise to?

After all our efforts over the past century in defending for SR, GR and Quantum theory against the presence of Aether so why look back for it trying to save our rotten theories?

i'm sorry the system itself is not something that exists in quantum mechanics.. that is the point of the half classical intuition point. the system out there in the world is a definite classical systems that is waaaaay more complicated than any puny human being has ever imagined or has any hope of calculating anything about precisely.

🎸🎸🎸👉👉👉🍌🐣🐣🐣👉😃😃👉💗💗💗👉🚨🚨🚨👉💗👉🐇👉💗👉🎸

and the first thing you say that time must be treated equally to space is just a very very bad way to formalize physics. it means nothing, the same systems has representations that take none of the postulates of SR. none of the conventions and so on. it is just representation theory that allows you to throw away and see these conventions for what they are, bullshit conventions for making the same identical physical system seem more consistant and for it to have simpler equations of motion. there are all kinds of representations of THE EXACT SAME physics, where the speed of light is not the same in all directions, where simultaneity is absolute, where length contraction and time dilation is only objective in one frame of reference, but has optical analogs in all other frames and so on. essentially all these representations are identical to special relativity, and that means they cannot be told apart by experiment, they are causaly identical without assuming half of what many physicists assume characterizes special relativity. let's step away from special relativity for a minute and talk about something slightly simpler, what if physicists did't know that there was some gauge in variance in qft, they would go on arguing about what gauges are legitimate and what gauges are crazy nonsense that breaks the principles of the special gauge that is very well established. this is exactly what is happening to peoples brains when they think most of the usual conventions for relativistic physics is the physics of the theory, but that is not the case at all. representation theory only requires that the same results are measurable inside a theory ad the causality is preserved for the coordinate independent physics to be preserved. but if you then put in a theory that has dependent variables at space like separations, then you are in trouble, if you are delusional enough to convince yourself that such a thing makes sense with no interaction between them, and so the show is on, quantum field theory makes sense locally, but once you talk about space like separation you have no idea what to do with the correlations and simultaneity. quantum field theory is local by fiat, which is a silly idea, a self flattering idea, that has nothing to do with reality and that stops people from thinking clearly at all, it is unfortunate that the realistic alternative has not been seen yet in experiements in terms of the character of the interactions that make the variables dependent on each other, but we will, and i sincerly hope the people who are content with accepting nonsense uncritically realize that they have to stop just yapping about stuff as if it made sense when it doesnt. you can always throw your hands up and say "this must just be the way it is" but that is cheap and easy and if we go on doing that for a while we will not understand anything.

a classical theory of variables could also just give you all the phenomena derived from any ad hock analysis of the uncertainty principle or any other effect, the world is your oyster when it comes to mathematics, all you need is the imagination to write it down. just because people can only come up with naive and silly classical theories, doesn't meant the criteria found in those can be used to prove theorems about quantum mechanics vs classical mechanics as a whole, those terms are retarded. mechanics is one single study, with a whole range of systems, most of which people simply have no idea about, we are over here thinking we know the world must be made out of rocks or water like some especially intelligent baboon sitting on the riverbank pondering existence. the justifications for the quantum/classical divide are extremely poorly motivated, the only reason so many people buy into it is because they are bad at maths and logic apparently. mathematically quantum mechanics is just a probability calculus over variables that have some interdependence that is not explained by the dynamics of independent variables. but they can easily be explained by interdependent hidden variables, no issue there what so ever, we are just back to classical probability theory and classical mechanics right away. there we go done and dusted, 100 years of nonsense in the trash can. the quantum theories we have are useful and i don't suggest any of it should be just thrown away, the stuff that agrees with experiment is fine, but beyond that we are just talking nonsense along side mathematics we understand very poorly apparently. i am a bit ranty here, but we have gone too long listening to a bunch of mathematically inconsistent nonsense form people who are amazed at how weird the world is, when it is in fact just their misconceptions that are weird and irreconcilable, quantum mechanics is completely reasonable and easy to understand if you just admit the variables are dependent and the dependence can be explained by additional independent and dependent variables. i am sick and tired of nonsense being spoken about as reasonable, and reasonable thinking being spoken about as confused, it is high time we start acting like adults and stop this nonsense from going any further than it already has, this is parents show up in lord of the flies territory. the mathematics in quantum theory is fine, it is just a probability calculus over unknowns that give rise to some observable, that is all. not complicated at all, all the weirdness can be summed up in the dependence and how they can arise form dynamics.

you see bud, you can avoid it easily by logic, any correlation in quantum mechanics can be explained by extra variables, and interactions between the observables in terms of those variables. that explains the whole range of logically possible measurment outcomes over experiements we have ever done. that is easy, it is the physics community that came upon a hard problem and convinced themselves nature was profoundly different to cover for their own egos. if you doubt that then okey, good for you, but if you take my statement seriously you might escape form the delusion of your intellectual ancestors and actually think in a reasonable and mathematically sound way. think in terms of the set of outcomes of experiements, then think about sets of variables and variable dependences that give those answers. it is litterally impossible to give quantum mechanics a form with functions, if it is not true that the results can also be explained with classically interdependant variable. every no go theorem or argument is just about a small class of classical field theory brain farts that came out of small minded folk with a desire to prove themselves right.

Why does everyone just assume that special relativity is correct and that anything that violates it must be wrong? At this point, it is not a scientific theory, but a cult belief. Scientific theories can always be disproved. Unfalsifiable cult beliefs not so much.

the aether is not incompatible with relativity.

Are these fields real or merely abstractions based upon workable mathematics? Do Physicists really think that these fields exist or are they just following the Math in a way that they can derive a plausible narrative as to what is? They are a useful model but that doesn't make them a fundamental truth. I also wonder if your dichotomy between scalar time and vector space may be inaccurate, what if there is a third option: treat both in an algebraic geometric way such as in a spacetime algebra? And don't forget, just because dmdt > h/2pi doesn't mean that particles 'must' exist .. that is just a choice made by theorists.

Hey Lucas. Inasmuch as you've been obliquely invoking aether in some of your vids, lets face the fact that no such 'ether/aether' exists. The _word itself_ is an anachronism connoting something extremely insubstantial, tenuous, un-dynamic and functionless. As a synonym for 'space', it has no place in scientific discourse because WORDS HAVE MEANING. 'Aether/ether' needs to be kicked out of the science lexicon forever. As for the contextual meaning of "space", lets first apply an analogy: Picture a fish deep in the ocean. He has no concept of "water" or "ocean", 'water molecules', pressure or density. To his perception, his domain is simply "space", a great void of 'nothing'. He feels no physical presence or pressure, because he's composed of and immersed in, the perceived "no-thing". He's neutrally buoyant in it. In like manner, our perception of "space" is a 'no-thing' or nothingness. We're oblivious that we, even down to our constituent atoms, are *full of and swimming in* one great 'Ocean', the Plenum of space. Our very atoms, down to their quantum and subquantum constituency, are FULL of It. It's said that an atom is 99.9999% or so "empty space", which translates to it being 99.9999% FULL of 'Plenum stuff'. As with Mr. Fish, we're also in hydraulic equalibrium with it, sensing no physical presence of it. And because its 'cellularity' is sub-Planckian, below our sensory and EM resolution, we go on perceiving It as 'void' or nothing, just as "water molecules" would be to Mr. Fish in his domain of "nothing". In like manner, we, our planet and our Cosmos are dwellers in our element, the 'Ocean' of subPlanckian space. NOT an 'aether/ether'. This little vid contains a neat metaphor of 'particles' popping out of and back into "nothing". Begins at 3: 40 ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-fY8pucNaaH0.html Under a Plenum model, there'd be no need for dedicated 'fields' for each particle, because all particles and fields would be process IN and OF the one primal Substratum.

The quantum void is my idea for the aether. I believe the quantum void is responsible for much of the strangeness the human mind inappropriately assigns to quantum physics Best wishes

Wrong